On another board I frequent a certain liberal member had stopped by the firearms section, this is a board of many random categories, and posted some rambling message about banning weapons from all civilians, basically leaving only the military and police armed. The arguements flew back and forth for a page or two until one of the members, he is an NRA licensed instructor and former police officer, posted the following (3) questions:

1) Suppose a criminal gets a gun on the black market, walks into a college campus, and pulls it out. What do you think will happen?

2) Suppose a criminal gets a gun on the black market, walks into a police station, and pulls it out. What do you think will happen?

Now, what makes the difference in these cases?

And with that it was self evident and pretty much ended the "discussion". Kind of a neat trick actually.... So, I thought I would share it here and see what the general thought is for this as an effective arguement...

On another board I frequent a certain liberal member had stopped by the firearms section, this is a board of many random categories, and posted some rambling message about banning weapons from all civilians, basically leaving only the military and police armed.

"When only cops have guns, it's called a 'police state'" --Claire Wolfe, 101 Things To Do Until The Revolution

Seriously, it makes you wonder how or why people would think like that liberal. Can they really not think that through to its logical conclusion? Lenin had it right when he tagged people like this "useful idiots".

The NRA instructor presented a great argument. It was probably lost on the lib, I bet.